After all, it might be difficult to find a piece of papyrus that was from the seventh century. Once some carbonized remains are in hand, a savvy forger can readily make a nice carbon-based ink, and one that would even yield an ancient carbon-14 date. So, for example, the phrase “Law of Moses” is a construct chain, and the phrase “Song of Songs” is as well.Alas, that too is an interesting (and problematic) line of reasoning for the Jerusalem Papyrus. One of the most important features of a construct chain is the form of the first noun in the construct chain.This is really quite a rookie mistake for the forger, and my strong suspicion is that the forger of this text is reading up right now on the proper construct forms in ancient Hebrew. There are also some problems with the script, some very fine anomalies.I may discuss those in a future publication…or I may not do so, in order to avoid educating the forgers.
Another absolute dating method is thermoluminescence, which dates the last time an item was heated.I rapidly posted some of my serious concerns about the authenticity of this inscription.First and foremost, assumptions were being made about the certitude of the authenticity of the inscription, based on the carbon dating of the papyrus. Obviously, carbon testing is among the most important tools in the toolbox, but the antiquity of the medium does not ensure the antiquity of an inscription.After all, for the past century and a half, forgers have been reading the things scholars write and learning more and more about how to avoid blunders in their forgeries.Ultimately, the case against the Jerusalem Papyrus is pretty strong.